Talk:Colour recovery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First incarnation:- lots of room for improvement. Addition of some pictures would be good (I think there already some relevant ones on Wikipedia). Certainly there's quite a bit of further untapped information about "Colour recovery" on the web. Also I'm unsure if my convention of using British English is appropriate here? On the one hand, the article so far deals with British TV programmes, but on the other hand, the article on Film Colorization is in US English, so I'm honestly not sure what's the best approach in this particular case! Suggestions welcome, as always. Benkid77 (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Green[edit]

Hi, is the stuff about Solar Green actually real, or are they just trying to get traffic for their website.

To me, it looks like they use the colourisation process, rather than true colour recovery. For a start, how can they get colour information from old black and white photos? Unless there is some independent proof that Solar Green are restoring true colour and not just colourising stuff, I don't think they should be mentioned on the article. Links to their own website do not count as proof. What's the exact process? How can they determine colours from a monochrome photo??? 86.134.2.210 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had the chance to fully sign up with Wikipedia (I'm the IP guy above), and do a bit more digging into Solar Green. There is no evidence that Solar Green are able to recover genuine colour from monochrome images (indeed, I don't see how it's possible to extract colour information from photographs). Their website is decided vague on the technique used, citing only "using the laws of physics" to restore the colour. It would appear then that Solar Green (who are simply using a false colour colourisation technique) have co-opted this Colour Recovery article to promote their website.
Wikipedia has rules against using articles as advertisements, so I'm going to make my first ever Wikipedia edit (yay!) and delete the Solar Green references. If someone can demonstrate that their technique is genuinely able to restore original colour (rather than making a best guess as seems to be the case), then I'm willing to concede that they belong on this page. But until we can be sure what their technique entails, and whether it is in fact colour recovery rather than simple colourisation, I don't thing those references have any place on this article. Cheers! TheRyanFrost (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're seeing some automatic reversions to a favoured version heavily in promotion of SolarGreen coming from an IP in Russia. For now, I've reverted to the version edited by TheRyanFrost amended slightly by me. Let's see if we can get some dialogue on the talk page. —BillC talk 00:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi there. It's pleasure to meet some notes about us here (I mean about Solar Green). Unfortunately we can't to make our process of color recovery cristal clear in wiki article. The reasons are: 1. This is our hidden technology, that's why we are first in that. We have our commercial mystery as other companies do. 2. We haven't seen any description of another method on this page as well. There are only common description of process. We apologise if some rules of wikipedia don't allow Russian IP, but we have a big project in Russia. Our research of ways to restore the color from bw image is too difficult to explain in here, but we could open some part of process (may be). But, for example, if we have any suspicions about another method of color recovery in the article, should we delete info about that?
Welcome to Wikipedia. First, there's no problem with any IP address, coming from anywhere. However, Wikipedia's articles are not driven by our 'personal suspicions', but by its policies. The important ones here are Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. While there's nothing preventing anyone writing about a subject they are connected with (and as you say, you are part of the Solar Green company), it is very important to be objective and neutral in your writing. On the subject of notability, Wikipedia requires that subjects be covered in independent, verifiable publications. I wasn't able to find anything on the internet about Solar Green other than seemed to come from the company itself.
On the other point, can you tell me why you twice reverted my edit to reduce the amount of text that was in italics? I said the reason that I did so was because the italics were excessive, went against Wikipedia's Manual of Style and made the text hard to read. I made no change to the content of the article on my first edit, just reduce the italics. The Manual of Style says on the subject:
"italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences.... Generally, the overuse of emphasis will reduce its effectiveness"
—BillC talk 01:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Forgive my reducing of your reducing the italics. I didn't mean to cancel of your changes at all. I hadn't noticed that only italics had been canceled. If there were any italics about Solar Green or about anything else, you were absolutely right! I'm ready to answer any questions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.158.64 (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 178.71.158.64 / 178.71.135.235 / 178.71.130.124 / 178.71.137.112! (I assume you are all the same person.) Two things:
  1. Information about Solar Green is totally appropriate to include in this article, provided it is verifiable. This means it must be documented in a reliable, published source. The Solar Green website is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, but if you know of a source which does meet the reliable source guidelines then please go ahead and include it.
  2. There is another edit - the one involving excessive italicisation - which you keep reverting as well. You (or at least someone I presume to be you) have already indicated that you did not intend to revert this change in the comment directly above this one, so please stop reverting it.
—cpcallen (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colour recovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colour recovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colour_recovery&oldid=1201049216"