I honestly don't understand the criticism here. The difference between popular-history and historical research is or should be obvious to anyone. The same criticism provided is one that can be...
I honestly don't understand the criticism here. The difference between popular-history and historical research is or should be obvious to anyone. The same criticism provided is one that can be flung at any if not all museums as they select, simplify and define the presentation of the past that can lead to misconceptions of the past or how to look at past... or it WOULD if historical researches lacked the ability to understand source criticism.
This whole idea is the criticism of any popularization of a subject which is weird.
“Colourisation does not bring us closer to the past; it increases the gap between now and then. It does not enable immediacy; it creates difference.”
This statement is a condemnation of the person who wrote it - who obviously doesn't understand the role of things like Peter Jacksons "They Shall Not Grow Old" in a modern sense OR that one of the core issues of history: understanding, relating and coming to terms with it is a modern persons inability to empathize and see the human aspect of the past and those who lived there. If historical research is made to be exact in favour of accessibility we will just be tossed back in to the system.
What Luke McKernan doesn't seem able to grasp is that not everything is catered to him.
That said if someone handed in work based off of colorized or edited images unthinking of it that person is obviously not fit to do research or should be made to take an extra class in source criticism.... Like Mark-Fitzgeralds incompetent students.
On the internet these images, she says, “come unmoored” from how and why they were made, and how and why they were changed. She has already had students submitting essays which include falsely colourised images without realising it.
This isn't a problem that comes from popular history but from the inability of researchers to understand popular history and then blame it for their shortcomings or - lets be frank: stupidity.
If someone hands in historical work based on Lord of the Rings that doesn't mean we should ban Lord of the Rings. If a student of art history doesn't understand the difference between colorized and reworked historical photos and videos and actual historical photos and videos - the issue isn't the material but the researchers misunderstanding of the whole subject of history, research and what source material is.
Sorry for sounding brash but this is about as complex as if someone in a zoology class based their work of Call of the Wild, Disneys Lemmings movie and the latest theatrical production of the Lion King
If you read the article and look for the videos of these companies on YouTube you’ll find no indication that the colorization uses an algorithm which does not take into account research about the...
If you read the article and look for the videos of these companies on YouTube you’ll find no indication that the colorization uses an algorithm which does not take into account research about the period. They use current images to guess how things used to look like. This is not at all like using fictional works as a basis for historical homework, because fiction is explicitly distinguished from reality.
I have read the article otherwise I wouldn't have commented. Popular Science is not and will never be actual Scientific research. A museum is an attempt at making a subject accessible which will...
I have read the article otherwise I wouldn't have commented.
Popular Science is not and will never be actual Scientific research. A museum is an attempt at making a subject accessible which will inevitably mean that it skews the subject towards that. A video never claiming to be historically accurate shouldn't be taken as historically accurate.
If a student watch a 4k video from 1901 and study art history or just history - not being able to understand that it will have assumptions, modern oversimplifications or inaccuracies - is absolutely, always, without fail, a shortcoming of the student who shouldn't pass that subject for lack of source criticism.
Making history accessible is NOT the same as presenting a perfect representation of it. Its interpretive, a problem all art history suffer under and tries to remedy - but not being able to compartmentalize the relevance of accuracy in research with the importance of making something accessible, humanizing or entertaining is worse. Specifically in history. It rips the path in to the humanizing of the past from people; making history even more complex, academic and obscured.
If colorizing photos of slaves in the 1800eds make the humanity, life and fates of those humans accessible to a modern viewer - its worth more than simplifying the research of someone investigating the color of shirts at that era. Specifically since that researcher will always have to be able to discern the value of their source material something that is from my memory lesson 101 in art history at least. Perhaps they should start by changing their curriculum first to ensure that their students don't go in to the subject without an understanding of what it means to do research?
I’m sorry for assuming you did not read the article, it certainly seemed like it. I also watched the videos and can assure you that they make no explicit effort to show that the “restoration” is...
I’m sorry for assuming you did not read the article, it certainly seemed like it. I also watched the videos and can assure you that they make no explicit effort to show that the “restoration” is nothing more than a creative rendition. Not just for the obvious reasons, but one could argue that making B&W film with a 16fps to 24fps cadence into 60fps 4K videos cannot, by the definition, be considered restoration.
My concern is actually quite simple: I don’t think it’s a good thing for a green hat to pass as blue, unless explicitly stated. That’s all.
Sorry for sounding angry... its not you its a long story from Art History class that is probably weighing in on me in this subject where some people mismanage their source material or don't...
Sorry for sounding angry... its not you its a long story from Art History class that is probably weighing in on me in this subject where some people mismanage their source material or don't examine it in favour of the quickest available assumptions.
I agree BUT I still think its critical that by their very existence these videos should be considered modified and that the colour of a hat is not as relevant for the casual viewer as the humanizing of the past.
But I do agree that better documentation and clearer descriptions would be in general a better thing.
Also I had to do some random searches on these videos and many if not most that I found made it clear that it was modified and not a perfect representation of the past but this should probably be something that can be made clearer and all videos of this type should at least have that. So we're in somewhat agreement at least? :)
Again sorry for sounding spiky that was dickish of me and you absolutely do not deserve that treatment (especially from me talking about "humanizing" things and at the same time not seeing the human in you, thats on me, sry)
I don’t wanna engage in a messy discussion about preservation, history and it’s place in human affairs, so I’ll settle for this: if a company significantly alters historical footage that can pass...
I don’t wanna engage in a messy discussion about preservation, history and it’s place in human affairs, so I’ll settle for this: if a company significantly alters historical footage that can pass as restoration, they have, in my view, a duty to make its creative nature both clear and abundantly explicit in all its videos with accessible language.
Hmmm ok I agree but I think we see the "pass as restoration" differently and how it should be communicated. As for the history and preservation discussion I would love to have it one day - the...
Hmmm ok I agree but I think we see the "pass as restoration" differently and how it should be communicated.
As for the history and preservation discussion I would love to have it one day - the problem is its so massive that it feels kind of wrong to do it in text, in person would be way better... :/
Should Tildes have like a every-other-month jitsi.meet hangoutish thing with conversation groups around a subject? That would be kind of cool
I usually do not shy from long form discussion, but I’m limited to my smartphone for the time being. It’s annoying to type long and complex stuff without a real keyboard. That said, it would be...
I usually do not shy from long form discussion, but I’m limited to my smartphone for the time being. It’s annoying to type long and complex stuff without a real keyboard.
That said, it would be nice to get to know my fellow Tilderinos better.
I actually don't mind colourisation, even if it isn't completely truthful. It's more difficult for me to picture being there or get what's happening with a black and white photo compared to a...
I actually don't mind colourisation, even if it isn't completely truthful. It's more difficult for me to picture being there or get what's happening with a black and white photo compared to a colour one.
I’m not against it, as long as the videos come with clear disclaimers stating that those are recreations instead of restorations. As a matter of fact, World War II in Color was a great historical...
I’m not against it, as long as the videos come with clear disclaimers stating that those are recreations instead of restorations.
As a matter of fact, World War II in Color was a great historical show with colorized footage.
At risk of oversimplifying the historians' concerns, I think they're worried about a nonexistent intent to pass these modified high-fidelity images as the genuine representation of the time, when...
At risk of oversimplifying the historians' concerns, I think they're worried about a nonexistent intent to pass these modified high-fidelity images as the genuine representation of the time, when the people making and using the tech just think it looks cool to manipulate old film to modern standards.
I also think we can simultaneously study history with the originals, but generate interest with the "high-fidelity" version, even with complete transparency that it is like a transcription (I like that analogy). It hasn't hurt Shakespeare to copy plays out of his writing.l, and it probably won't hurt film to make an updated version of the original.
The problem with this argument is that the official channels for these companies present the videos without any explicit statements that they are nothing more than creative recreations.
The problem with this argument is that the official channels for these companies present the videos without any explicit statements that they are nothing more than creative recreations.
I think it might be too dismissive to just call them creative recreations. When it comes to increasing the framerate it's sort of very advanced frame interpolation. Its likely to be a more...
I think it might be too dismissive to just call them creative recreations. When it comes to increasing the framerate it's sort of very advanced frame interpolation. Its likely to be a more accurate representation than the source because there's not much creativity to be injected between frames.
I have a suspicion that the entire article is inspired by this fact: If you're studying this stuff, don't use 4K/60fps youtube upscales, use the originals. Isn't that enough? How on earth would...
I have a suspicion that the entire article is inspired by this fact:
She has already had students submitting essays which include falsely colourised images without realising it.
If you're studying this stuff, don't use 4K/60fps youtube upscales, use the originals. Isn't that enough? How on earth would you get people to "stop" upscaling old photographs when it obviously is a lot of fun and works really, really well? Where's the actual harm outside academic accuracy?
I wonder how this problem evolves over the next century now that we've got color-accurate, high-framerate, high-resolution, and lossless video all in one package?
I wonder how this problem evolves over the next century now that we've got color-accurate, high-framerate, high-resolution, and lossless video all in one package?
I honestly don't understand the criticism here. The difference between popular-history and historical research is or should be obvious to anyone. The same criticism provided is one that can be flung at any if not all museums as they select, simplify and define the presentation of the past that can lead to misconceptions of the past or how to look at past... or it WOULD if historical researches lacked the ability to understand source criticism.
This whole idea is the criticism of any popularization of a subject which is weird.
This statement is a condemnation of the person who wrote it - who obviously doesn't understand the role of things like Peter Jacksons "They Shall Not Grow Old" in a modern sense OR that one of the core issues of history: understanding, relating and coming to terms with it is a modern persons inability to empathize and see the human aspect of the past and those who lived there. If historical research is made to be exact in favour of accessibility we will just be tossed back in to the system.
What Luke McKernan doesn't seem able to grasp is that not everything is catered to him.
That said if someone handed in work based off of colorized or edited images unthinking of it that person is obviously not fit to do research or should be made to take an extra class in source criticism.... Like Mark-Fitzgeralds incompetent students.
This isn't a problem that comes from popular history but from the inability of researchers to understand popular history and then blame it for their shortcomings or - lets be frank: stupidity.
If someone hands in historical work based on Lord of the Rings that doesn't mean we should ban Lord of the Rings. If a student of art history doesn't understand the difference between colorized and reworked historical photos and videos and actual historical photos and videos - the issue isn't the material but the researchers misunderstanding of the whole subject of history, research and what source material is.
Sorry for sounding brash but this is about as complex as if someone in a zoology class based their work of Call of the Wild, Disneys Lemmings movie and the latest theatrical production of the Lion King
If you read the article and look for the videos of these companies on YouTube you’ll find no indication that the colorization uses an algorithm which does not take into account research about the period. They use current images to guess how things used to look like. This is not at all like using fictional works as a basis for historical homework, because fiction is explicitly distinguished from reality.
I have read the article otherwise I wouldn't have commented.
Popular Science is not and will never be actual Scientific research. A museum is an attempt at making a subject accessible which will inevitably mean that it skews the subject towards that. A video never claiming to be historically accurate shouldn't be taken as historically accurate.
If a student watch a 4k video from 1901 and study art history or just history - not being able to understand that it will have assumptions, modern oversimplifications or inaccuracies - is absolutely, always, without fail, a shortcoming of the student who shouldn't pass that subject for lack of source criticism.
Making history accessible is NOT the same as presenting a perfect representation of it. Its interpretive, a problem all art history suffer under and tries to remedy - but not being able to compartmentalize the relevance of accuracy in research with the importance of making something accessible, humanizing or entertaining is worse. Specifically in history. It rips the path in to the humanizing of the past from people; making history even more complex, academic and obscured.
If colorizing photos of slaves in the 1800eds make the humanity, life and fates of those humans accessible to a modern viewer - its worth more than simplifying the research of someone investigating the color of shirts at that era. Specifically since that researcher will always have to be able to discern the value of their source material something that is from my memory lesson 101 in art history at least. Perhaps they should start by changing their curriculum first to ensure that their students don't go in to the subject without an understanding of what it means to do research?
I’m sorry for assuming you did not read the article, it certainly seemed like it. I also watched the videos and can assure you that they make no explicit effort to show that the “restoration” is nothing more than a creative rendition. Not just for the obvious reasons, but one could argue that making B&W film with a 16fps to 24fps cadence into 60fps 4K videos cannot, by the definition, be considered restoration.
My concern is actually quite simple: I don’t think it’s a good thing for a green hat to pass as blue, unless explicitly stated. That’s all.
Unless we’re talking fiction, of course.
Sorry for sounding angry... its not you its a long story from Art History class that is probably weighing in on me in this subject where some people mismanage their source material or don't examine it in favour of the quickest available assumptions.
I agree BUT I still think its critical that by their very existence these videos should be considered modified and that the colour of a hat is not as relevant for the casual viewer as the humanizing of the past.
But I do agree that better documentation and clearer descriptions would be in general a better thing.
Also I had to do some random searches on these videos and many if not most that I found made it clear that it was modified and not a perfect representation of the past but this should probably be something that can be made clearer and all videos of this type should at least have that. So we're in somewhat agreement at least? :)
Again sorry for sounding spiky that was dickish of me and you absolutely do not deserve that treatment (especially from me talking about "humanizing" things and at the same time not seeing the human in you, thats on me, sry)
I don’t wanna engage in a messy discussion about preservation, history and it’s place in human affairs, so I’ll settle for this: if a company significantly alters historical footage that can pass as restoration, they have, in my view, a duty to make its creative nature both clear and abundantly explicit in all its videos with accessible language.
Hmmm ok I agree but I think we see the "pass as restoration" differently and how it should be communicated.
As for the history and preservation discussion I would love to have it one day - the problem is its so massive that it feels kind of wrong to do it in text, in person would be way better... :/
Should Tildes have like a every-other-month jitsi.meet hangoutish thing with conversation groups around a subject? That would be kind of cool
I usually do not shy from long form discussion, but I’m limited to my smartphone for the time being. It’s annoying to type long and complex stuff without a real keyboard.
That said, it would be nice to get to know my fellow Tilderinos better.
Seconded
I actually don't mind colourisation, even if it isn't completely truthful. It's more difficult for me to picture being there or get what's happening with a black and white photo compared to a colour one.
It's a shame some people are so against it.
I’m not against it, as long as the videos come with clear disclaimers stating that those are recreations instead of restorations.
As a matter of fact, World War II in Color was a great historical show with colorized footage.
At risk of oversimplifying the historians' concerns, I think they're worried about a nonexistent intent to pass these modified high-fidelity images as the genuine representation of the time, when the people making and using the tech just think it looks cool to manipulate old film to modern standards.
I also think we can simultaneously study history with the originals, but generate interest with the "high-fidelity" version, even with complete transparency that it is like a transcription (I like that analogy). It hasn't hurt Shakespeare to copy plays out of his writing.l, and it probably won't hurt film to make an updated version of the original.
The problem with this argument is that the official channels for these companies present the videos without any explicit statements that they are nothing more than creative recreations.
I think it might be too dismissive to just call them creative recreations. When it comes to increasing the framerate it's sort of very advanced frame interpolation. Its likely to be a more accurate representation than the source because there's not much creativity to be injected between frames.
I have a suspicion that the entire article is inspired by this fact:
If you're studying this stuff, don't use 4K/60fps youtube upscales, use the originals. Isn't that enough? How on earth would you get people to "stop" upscaling old photographs when it obviously is a lot of fun and works really, really well? Where's the actual harm outside academic accuracy?
I wonder how this problem evolves over the next century now that we've got color-accurate, high-framerate, high-resolution, and lossless video all in one package?